DOCSLIB.ORG

3. Existing Conditions/Opportunities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3. Existing Conditions/Opportunities CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES This chapter of the Housing Element analyzes population and housing characteristics, identifies special housing needs among certain population groups, evaluates housing conditions, and provides other important information to support the goals, policies, and programs to meet the needs of current and future Oakland residents. This chapter of the Housing Element has been revised according to California Housing and Community Development Department’s Housing Element Streamlined Update Guidance. The guidance for this update specifies a ”Requisite Analysis for changes to only certain housing needs, thus not all language, tables and figures have been changed from the prior published Housing Element. The primary source of data for the updated analysis is derived from the 2010 Census. Exceptions to this are noted in the text or table references.7 Chapter 3 is divided into 11 sections, as follows: A. Population and Household Characteristics – provides general information on population and household characteristics, such as ethnicity, age, household composition, income, and household size. B. Housing Characteristics – describes general housing characteristics such as the number of housing units by type, tenure, and vacancy. C. Age and Condition of Housing Stock – describes the age and condition of the City’s housing stock and provides an estimate of the number and percentage of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation. D. Housing Cost – compares rental housing costs and housing prices in Oakland with surrounding communities and analyzes the affordability of housing in Oakland in relation to local incomes. E. Foreclosures – summarizes the impacts on City of Oakland residents as a result of the housing market bubble and resulting economic crisis. 7 The current American Community Survey (ACS) Census product is only used in some tables as required by California state Department of Housing and Community Development. The 2010 Census and the American Community Survey (ACS) continue to be evaluated by City of Oakland staff. Comparing these data to other sources used by the City (e.g.: 2000 Census, California State Department of Finance, and USPS 90-day Vacancy data), there is clear evidence that there are problems with the ACS sampling. Specifically, the ACS data in question is an under count of the population and over count of the vacancy rate. City staff are considering an appeal to the US Census bureau for a re-evaluation of these figures. Specifically, there are discrepancies with the 2010 Census showing a population decrease of 8,842 from 2000 Census population count yet an increase of 12,202 housing units. The population decrease could be explained partially by those Oakland households who lost their homes due to foreclosure though all foreclosed homes between 2006-2009 would have needed to be vacant simultaneously with the Census count to explain the magnitude of population loss reported. (See section on Foreclosures for detail on ownership units lost during the height of the crisis.) The housing unit increase is supported by building completions data as reported to the State of California Department of Finance during the same time period. Additionally, according to the 2010 Census the vacancy rate more than doubled to 9.38% over what was reported in the 2000 Census. This could explain the discrepancy between the population and housing unit count differences but again it is not supported by other similar data. The USPS 90-day Vacancy Data shows a vacancy rate of 2% reported March 31, 2010 -- much lower than the 2010 Census. It is conceivable but unlikely that the Census 2010 vacancy rate is attributable to the foreclosure crisis. If that were the case, again, all homeownership units lost due to foreclosure from 2006-2009 would need to have been vacant at the time the 2010 Census was taken in addition to other types of vacancies (e.g. 2000 Census vacancy rate) in order to reach the magnitude of the vacancy rate reported in 2010. EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 101 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 F. Households Overpaying for Housing – describes the number and percentage of households paying more than 30 and 50 percent of their incomes for housing by household type and income level. G. Overcrowding – analyzes the number and percentage of households by tenure with more than one person per room. H. Special Housing Needs – describes the characteristics and housing needs of particular sub-groups of the City’s population (seniors, large families, female-headed households, farm workers, persons with disabilities, and persons in need of emergency shelter) identified in state law as groups with special housing needs. I. Assisted Rental Housing – describes the characteristics of publicly assisted private rental housing and public housing in Oakland. J. Analysis of Assisted, At-Risk Housing Projects – identifies privately owned, subsidized rental housing developments that may be at risk of converting to market rate rental housing, creating a loss of affordable rental housing in Oakland. K. Population and Employment Trends – summarizes population and employment trends in Oakland as they relate to future housing needs and demand. A. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Population The City of Oakland had a population of 390,724 in 2010 and was, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the eighth largest city in California. The City was home to 153,791 households. Approximately 8,138 Oakland residents lived in group quarters such as college dormitories, nursing homes, correctional facilities, and other shelter facilities not constituting individual dwelling units. The last three decades have brought significant changes to Oakland. Before 1980, Oakland had experienced three decades of population decline due to changes in the local economy, migration to suburban communities, and other factors. Since 1990, Oakland has experienced growing interest as a place to live and work. In recent decades the San Francisco Bay Area has been the focal point of significant economic development and investment in the technology sector. In the early 2000s this resulted in significant constraints on housing in areas located near Silicon Valley (San Mateo County and San Francisco City and County). The bursting of the housing bubble and resulting foreclosure crisis and economic slowdown after 2008 saw a decline in housing demand and costs both in rental and ownership units in Oakland. Resurgence in the technology sector in recent years has resulted in another period of high housing demand that has spilled over to other regional cities including Oakland. One indicator of the regional nature of housing demand is the “Google Bus” phenomenon. Information technology companies provide free luxury coach bus shuttles from area cities to their corporate campuses in Silicon Valley. Those busses now have pick-up locations at four Oakland locations (including three BART stations). Murmurs of the regional impact of housing demand on the City of Oakland are starting to become visible in the demand and costs of rental and ownership housing in the City. See the section on Housing Cost, Housing Prices for Owner-Occupied Housing for detail on region median home sales prices as an illustration of how significantly less expensive East Bay housing prices are and how that might be influencing regional housing choice and the increase in demand for housing in Oakland. 102 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 The housing policy implications of Oakland’s historic and projected population growth are discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter. Ethnicity Since at least the 1940s, Oakland has had a significantly higher percentage of non-White and Hispanic residents than other cities of similar size. However, the most significant change in Oakland’s population since 2000 has been a decrease in the number and the proportion of residents who identified themselves as non-Hispanic Black/African-American. The City’s non-Hispanic Black/African American population declined by 23.9 percent between 2000 and 2010. In comparison, the population who identified themselves as non-Hispanic White increased, as did the non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino populations. The non-Hispanic White population increased by 7.8 percent, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander population increased by 7.8 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino population increased by 13.3 percent. Despite these significant demographic changes, Oakland’s population continues to be very diverse as evidenced by the 2010 census: 25.9 percent non-Hispanic White, 27.3 percent non-Hispanic Black/African American, 16.7 percent non-Hispanic Asian, and 25.4 percent Hispanic. This change in the composition of the City’s population may have implications for future housing needs (as discussed below in the section on household characteristics), because the family composition, living preferences and patterns, and economic decisions of these new arrivals to Oakland may be different than those of previous residents of the City. The decline in the non-Hispanic Black/African American population since 1990 may have three causes: some Black/African American families may have moved to suburban locations by choice to purchase less costly homes, while others may have moved from Oakland due to rapidly rising housing costs during recent decades. A third reason might be attributable to the foreclosure crisis with its epicenter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The First Cycle of Gentrification in West Oakland, California: 1998-2008
    THE FIRST CYCLE OF GENTRIFICATION IN WEST OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: 1998-2008 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of The requirements for The degree Master of Arts In Geography By Jason Neil Zimmerman April 2009 ii THE FIRST CYCLE OF GENTRIFICATION IN WEST OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: 1998-2008 Jason Zimmerman San Francisco State University 2009 Gentrification is a complex process of urban change in which higher-income residents and commercial uses replace those of lower socioeconomic status. This thesis examines the process of gentrification between 1998 and 2008 in West Oakland, California, describing the transformations that occurred in the area and the extent to which gentrification is represented by these changes. West Oakland did gentrify, albeit in a slower and less dramatic manner than was expected. Increased land values and residential displacement, combined with an influx of wealthier residents, highlighted these shifts. However, it is a neighborhood to which wealthier residents and large developer capital came later than other nearby neighborhoods. Factors including local government development policy, community involvement in the redevelopment of the neighborhood, and city housing policies altered the course and arguably limited the extent of gentrification in West Oakland. Today West Oakland can be seen as a neighborhood that remains vulnerable to gentrification while at the same time it is a place of last resort for large flows of capital to settle and enact a process of gentrification. ii iii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction……………………………………………………………….….........1 II. Significance of Research…………………...…………………………………..15 III. Study Area Background……………………………...…………………………18 IV. A Review of the Literature…………………………………..…………….......31 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Downtown for Everyone Robert A
    REPORT SEPTEMBER 2015 A DOWNTOWN Shaping the future of FOR downtown Oakland EVERYONE Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary SPUR staff Egon Terplan, Project lead 6 Introduction Mohit Shewaramani, Oakland Fellow 9 How We Got Here Sarah Jo Szambelan, Research Manager Robert Ogilvie, Oakland Director 12 Today’s Opportunities and Challenges SPUR Oakland City Board 20 Our Vision: A Downtown for Everyone Robert A. Wilkins (project co-chair) Bill Stotler (project co-chair) 24 BIG IDEA 1 Tomiquia Moss (board chair) Grow 50,000 more jobs in downtown and create pathways to get A DOWNTOWN Fred Blackwell people into them. Deborah Boyer 33 BIG IDEA 2 Anagha Dandekar Clifford Bring 25,000 more residents to downtown at a range of incomes, and Jose Corona Shaping the future of Charmaine Curtis enable existing residents to remain. Paul Figueroa 37 BIG IDEA 3 downtown Oakland Mike Ghielmetti FOR Set clear and consistent rules for growth to make downtown a better Spencer Gillette place for everyone. Chris Iglesias Robert Joseph 44 BIG IDEA 4 Ken Lowney Create inviting public spaces and streets as part of an active public Christopher Lytle realm. Olis Simmons Joshua Simon 54 BIG IDEA 5 EVERYONE Resources and reviewers Make it easy to get to and around downtown through an expanded Anyka Barber, Alex Boyd, Anthony Bruzzone, Clarissa transportation network. Cabansagan, Dave Campbell, Jim Cunradi, John Dolby, 63 Big Ideas for the Future Margo Dunlap, Karen Engel, Sarah Filley, Rachel Flynn, Erin Ferguson, Sarah Fine, Aliza Gallo, Jennie Gerard, June 66
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Infill
    Smart Infill A practical guide to creating vibrant places throughout the Bay Area Greenbelt Alliance would like to thank the following organizations for their support for this report: Forest City Panoramic Interests SKS Investments Greenbelt Alliance also thanks the following individuals, who contributed expertise or reviewed significant portions ofSmart Infill: Gillian Adams, Association of Bay Area Governments Curt Johansen, Triad Communities W. Anderson Barnes, Grant Thornton LLC Vivian Kahn, Dyett and Bhatia George Brewster, KMJ Urban Communities Dan Kingsley, SKS Investments Paul Campos, Home Builders Association of Northern Gabriel Metcalf, San Francisco Planning and Urban California Research John Chapman, Trustee, East Bay Community Foundation Kate O’Hara, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy Ann Cheng, Transportation and Land Use Coalition Paul Penninger, Non-Profit Housing Association of Tim Colen, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition Northern California (formerly) Zach Cowan, City of Berkeley Charles Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Ignacio Dayrit, City of Emeryville Christy Riviere, Association of Bay Area Governments David Early, Design, Community & Environment Jack Robertson, AF Evans John Ellis, WRT Kate White, Urban Land Institute San Francisco Rachel Hooper, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Chris Wuthmann, Renew Property Services Rosey Jencks, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Michelle Yesney, David J. Powers & Associates Thanks also to the many city staff around the region who helped us understand
    [Show full text]
  • Going Uptown in Downtown Oakland: Market‐Rate Housing As a Redevelopment Tool
    GOING UPTOWN IN DOWNTOWN OAKLAND: MARKET‐RATE HOUSING AS A REDEVELOPMENT TOOL Jessica Sheldon Master of City Planning Candidate University of California, Berkeley submission for APA’s Economic Development Division Graduate Scholarship February 6, 2009 Abstract At least since urban renewal efforts of the 1960s, local governments around the country have struggled with how to revitalize city centers in order to turn around declining populations and job opportunities. Traditionally, these efforts have focused on employment growth or retail and industrial development. Beginning in the 1990s, however, there was increased focus on a different strategy: attracting new residents into market‐rate units. Proponents argue that new residential development will itself spur greater retail and job growth. The city of Oakland, California represents one of the fullest implementations of this strategy. Between 2000 and 2008, over 10,000 new residential—mostly market‐rate—units were approved for construction in the downtown area. This paper examines how a consensus emerged around market‐rate residential development, with a focus on the negotiations between the mayor, city council, developers, and community advocates over one specific project, “The Uptown.” A strong mayor was the primary driver of the development, yet other stakeholders came to support it and managed to have at least some of their interests fulfilled. Jessica Sheldon Going Uptown In Oakland, California at the beginning of the 21st century, a consensus emerged among developers, politicians, and other city officials that market‐rate residential development was the best strategy for revitalizing the city’s downtown. At that particular moment in time—at the height of the housing bubble—and with a location just minutes from San Francisco, it seemed like downtown Oakland was poised for a comeback.
    [Show full text]
  • A Downtown for Everyone Robert A
    REPORT SEPTEMBER 2015 A DOWNTOWN Shaping the future of FOR downtown Oakland EVERYONE Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary SPUR staff Egon Terplan, Project lead 6 Introduction Mohit Shewaramani, Oakland Fellow 9 How We Got Here Sarah Jo Szambelan, Research Manager Robert Ogilvie, Oakland Director 12 Today’s Opportunities and Challenges SPUR Oakland City Board 20 Our Vision: A Downtown for Everyone Robert A. Wilkins (project co-chair) Bill Stotler (project co-chair) 24 BIG IDEA 1 Tomiquia Moss (board chair) Grow 50,000 more jobs in downtown and create pathways to get Fred Blackwell people into them. Deborah Boyer 33 BIG IDEA 2 Anagha Dandekar Clifford Jose Corona Bring 25,000 more residents to downtown at a range of incomes, and Charmaine Curtis enable existing residents to remain. Paul Figueroa 37 BIG IDEA 3 Mike Ghielmetti Set clear and consistent rules for growth to make downtown a better Spencer Gillette place for everyone. Chris Iglesias Robert Joseph 44 BIG IDEA 4 Ken Lowney Create inviting public spaces and streets as part of an active public Christopher Lytle realm. Olis Simmons Joshua Simon 54 BIG IDEA 5 Resources and reviewers Make it easy to get to and around downtown through an expanded Anyka Barber, Alex Boyd, Anthony Bruzzone, Clarissa transportation network. Cabansagan, Dave Campbell, Jim Cunradi, John Dolby, 63 Big Ideas for the Future Margo Dunlap, Karen Engel, Sarah Filley, Rachel Flynn, Erin Ferguson, Sarah Fine, Aliza Gallo, Jennie Gerard, June 66 Plan of Action Grant, Savlan Hauser, Linda Hausrath, Zakiya Harris,
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Advocates for Affordable Housing
    Community Economics, Inc. FORTY YEARS OF TECHNICAL SAVVY AND PROGRESSIVE VISION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Community Economics, Inc. FORTY YEARS OF TECHNICAL SAVVY AND PROGRESSIVE VISION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING © 2015 Community Economics, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from Community Economics, Inc. 1 Introduction 5 Our Story 42 Our Partners 48 Our Projects 57 Advocates for Affordable Housing 70 Joel Rubenzahl: Portrait of Principle 79 Our People 96 A Bright Future 102 Appendix The Mission Community Economics, Inc.’s mission is to increase the sup- ply of permanently affordable housing serving the lowest- income households. CEI will undertake this mission through (1) the provision of technical assistance in the development and financing of permanently affordable housing to nonprofit developers, public agencies, and tenant organizations, and (2) education, research, and policy development with housing advocates, public policymakers, and the lending and invest- ment community. Introduction Letter from the Board THE HIDDEN CODE While so many entities follow the mantra that growth is good, Community Economics has never believed in getting bigger for its own sake. If we think of a community as tight-knit and compact, and we think of economics in terms of efficiency and productivity, then over its 40-year history, Community Economics has always stayed true to its name. Yet this tiny organization — a mere five people, working out of a sunny office in Oakland — has had a major impact on the California and national afford- able housing movements, helping create homes for tens of thousands of people who would otherwise struggle to afford a decent place to live.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Without Displacement RESISTING GENTRIFICATION in the BAY AREA
    Development without Displacement RESISTING GENTRIFICATION IN THE BAY AREA Written by Causa Justa :: Just Cause with health impact research and data and policy analysis contributed by the Alameda County Public Health Department, Place Matters Team Acknowledgements This report was written by Causa Justa :: Just Cause (CJJC) with health impact research and data and policy analysis contributed by the Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD), Place Matters Team. A special thanks goes out to all the individuals who provided feedback on the draft framework and policy and health analyses, and to those who shared their stories and experiences. Causa Justa :: Just Cause Writers Reviewers and Contributors Dawn Phillips, Co-Director of Programs, Lead Writer Gloria Bruce, East Bay Housing Organizations Luis Flores, Jr., CJJC Intern & Stronach Fellow, Dr. Richard Walker, Professor Emeritus of University of California, Berkeley Geography, University of California, Berkeley Jamila Henderson, Contracted Project Coordinator Will Dominie, Contra Costa Health Services Causa Justa :: Just Cause Contributors and Interviewers Reviewers Sonia Aldape, CJJC Volunteer Robbie Clark, Housing Rights Campaign Lead Carmela Zakon, CJJC Volunteer Organizer, CJJC Luis Flores, Jr., CJJC Intern & Stronach Fellow, Maria Zamudio, San Francisco Housing Rights University of California, Berkeley Campaign Organizer, CJJC Jamila Henderson, Contracted Project Coordinator, Gilda Haas, Professor of Urban Planning, Antioch CJJC University & Board of Directors, CJJC María Poblet,
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping “The Town” in Downtown: an Assessment and Recommendations to Support Racial Equity in the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan
    Keeping “the Town” in Downtown: An Assessment and Recommendations to Support Racial Equity in the Downtown Oakland Specific Plan 2018 I-SEEED Equity Team (consultant to the Planning Bureau) City of Oakland Planning Bureau The I-SEEED Equity Team is led by the Institute for Social, Economic, Environmental, and Educational Design (ISEEED) With the partnership of: • Julia Liou and Mike Lok, Asian Health Services • Greg Hodge, Khepera Consulting • Jme McLean, Mesu Strategies, LLC • Eric Arnold, Oakulture • Kalima Rose, PolicyLink • Sarah Filley, Popuphood, LLC • Dwayne Marsh, Race Forward I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 II. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5 III. Context for Racial Equity Work ........................................................................................... 12 IV. Purpose and Focus of this Racial Equity Assessment ................................................. 17 V. Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................... 20 VI. Racial Inequities in Oakland ................................................................................................. 24 VII. Priority Racial Equity Stakeholders .................................................................................... 46 VIII. Assessment of Community Engagement .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Merritt Bart Station Vision Plan
    LAKE MERRITT BART STATION Final Summary Report FUNDING PROVIDED BY CALTRANS March 2006 Prepared by LAKE MERRITT BART STATION FINAL SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for: California State Dept. of Transportation Community-Based Planning March 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………… 1 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………… 3 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND GOALS ………………………………………… 3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT …………………………………………… 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS ……………………………………………………… 6 STUDY AREA CONTEXT …………………………………………………… 6 LAND USE …………………………………………………………………… 9 Existing Uses ……………………………………………………………… 9 Open Space …………………………………………………………… 12 Built Form …………………………………………………………… 13 TRANSPORTATION …………………………………………………………… 14 Regional Context ……………………………………………………… 14 Local Transportation …………………………………………………… 16 DEMOGRAPHICS …………………………………………………………………………… 25 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND MARKET ANALYSIS ………………………… 29 DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND OPPORTUNITIES ………………………………………… 31 Existing Plans and Projects Nearby ……………………………………… 31 Opportunity Sites………………………………………………………… 33 FOCUS GROUP KEY FINDINGS ……………………………………………… 36 BETTER STREETS CONCEPT STUDY ………………………………………… 39 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………… 39 RELATED TRANSPORTATION PLANS……………………………………………………… 41 EXISTING TRAFFIC FEATURES……………………………………………………………… 44 STUDY ISSUES ………………………………………………………………………………… 47 CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………… 55 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………… 57 APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………… 58 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is a compilation of work conducted by the Bay Area Rapid
    [Show full text]
  • Plan Downtown August 30, 2016 Plan Alternatives Report Comments
    Plan Downtown August 30, 2016 Plan Alternatives Report Comments Name Affliation Source Topic Date Comment Parking lot on 8th Street should not be converted into a pocket park as it could be used to increase density in the area, and would establish a continious retail Adam 11 West Partners-Old Economic fabric that currently exits in the rest of the area. Maintain the character of the 1 Email 4/6/16 Goldenberg Oakland Development neighborhood. Parking lot on 10th Street should include higher densities and make 10th street more attractive for pedestrians. AC Transit's core concern is that the plan does not provide for a network of transit-focused streets in Downtown Oakland. lf these streets are not managed and improved appropriately, the result will be greater unreliability Robert del Connectivity & 2 AC Transit E-mail Attachment Letter 4/6/16 of services, greater delays, and loss of ridership. These streets do not all Rosario Access necessarily need dedicated bus lanes, but they all need to be managed with transit as the first priority. As a planning concept, we propose that streets with bus routes within the Downtown Specific Plan area be. considered part of a powntown Oakland Transit Priority Zone. We have proposed this concept in the Major Corridors Study. Within this Zone, the City would work with AC Transit to facilitate fast, Robert del Connectivity & frequent, reliable, attractive transit. Designating a network of transit 3 AC Transit E-mail Attachment Letter 4/6/16 Rosario Access riority/preferential streets is a best practice in today's transportation planning, being implemented by San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Washington, and the city of Alameda, among others.
    [Show full text]